As 2015 comes to a close, NPMA would like to wish its members, partners and other industry professionals a safe and happy holiday season. As we reflect on the past year for the industry, we would like to provide the readers of the ePestWorld a look at the 10 most accessed articles from the year. Our regular publication will resume Tuesday, Jan. 5.

NPMAFrom Sept. 8: On Thursday, Sept. 3, NPMA submitted comments to the Department of Labor in opposition of the Department’s flawed proposed overtime rule. NPMA, along with 250 individual NPMA members, submitted an extension request for the rule in early August. Unfortunately, the Department announced on Monday, August 31 that they would not extend the comment period, despite hundreds of thousands of requests to extend the comment period. The deadline to submit comments was Sept. 4. The comments submitted by NPMA respectfully requests the Department to withdraw the proposed rule, explaining:

As proposed, the Department’s proposed rule does not achieve the intended objective of protecting the American workforce through overtime protection mechanisms. Instead, the Department’s unprecedented 113 percent raise of the minimum salary threshold for overtime pay is ill advised and does not take into account the effects this abrupt threshold increase would have on the economy and employee flexibility. The proposed rule inadequately addresses important factors such as regional cost-of-living differences and the need to account for non-discretionary bonuses. The pest management industry is additionally concerned by the Department’s attempt to subvert federal authority and legislative intent by annually indexing the minimum salary threshold and potentially altering the long used duties test for white collar exemptions from overtime pay.

In addition to submitting comments directly from the pest management industry, NPMA signed onto comments submitted by the Partnership to Protect Workforce Opportunity (PPWO). The PPWO is comprised of a wide range of associations and companies that represent a diverse group of industries and interests. The comments submitted by the PPWO are inclusive of a broad set of industry goals and objectives in opposition to the proposed rule. NPMA in conjunction with the PPWO will continue to raise this issue on Capitol Hill as Congress returns from August recess this week.

NPMAFrom April 7: According to published reports, in March 2015 a Delaware family was admitted to the hospital after becoming ill while on vacation at a rental property in the U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S.V.I). They were airlifted to the United States mainland for continued treatment. The mother has been released and the father and two teenage sons remain in critical condition.

The family may have been exposed to methyl bromide that was allegedly used to fumigate a residential unit below the one in which were staying. The property manager has indicated they had recently contracted the services of a pest management company to treat for bugs in that unit. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Department of Justice, and U.S.V.I Department of Planning and Natural Resources are investigating. Click here to read NPMA's statement and talking points.

NPMAFrom Aug. 11: On August 5 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication rule proposing stronger standards for commercial and private pesticide applicators who apply restricted-use pesticides (RUPs). The rule will raise the Federal standards for applicator competency, including testing, certification and continuing education, in an effort to provide assurances that certified applicators and noncertified applicators under their direct supervision are competent to use RUPs in a manner that will not cause unreasonable adverse effects.

The pre-publication totaled 280 pages and the NPMA Policy Team is working quickly to analyze the entire proposal and all impacts it may have on the structural pest management industry. In the meantime we’ve prepared the below highlights that we feel you should be aware of:

Additional training and certification requirements will be implemented for aerial application, soil fumigation and non-soil fumigation.

All persons, certified applicator or person working under their direct supervision, must be 18 to apply RUPs.

Additional training and certification requirements will be implemented for noncertified applicators working under direct supervision of a certified applicator, including training and/or passage of the core exam.

Added responsibilities for certified applicators supervising a noncertified applicator applying RUPs, including being certified in the category of the application being performed by the non-certified applicator, and being available for direct communication, either on site or via cellphone, two-way radio, or other mechanical device.

Commercial applicators will be responsible for maintaining training records of non-certified applicators for 2 years.

Standardizing requirements for certification exams, including the requirement of a proctor and mandating all exams be closed book, in addition to identification procedures.

Instituting standard based recertification requirements for commercial applicators every 3 years, including 6 CEUs for core application and 6 CEUs per specific category. Applicators must earn half of the required CEUs in the 18 months preceding expiration.

States will be required to provide information about state requirements and procedures for reciprocity.

Under the current Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) structure, the standards set forth are the minimum requirements a state must implement. In some states many of the above changes are already mandated. EPA specifically noted this fact and has proposed the heightened standards to provide a more unified regulatory scheme under FIFRA. States that are below the proposed minimum standards will be required to raise the minimum standards in their state plans.

Implications:
The most important thing for Pest Professionals to note is that even though the above changes to the federal regulations only apply to persons applying restricted use pesticides or persons working under their direct supervision, each of the fifty states will need to alter their certification and training laws and regulations to come into compliance with the federal requirements. In almost every case, the changes to the state laws and regulations will impact the use of general use pesticides by PMPs.

Next Steps:
The NPMA policy team has already and will continue to meet with officials at EPA, and will be working closely with State Regulatory Officials throughout the nation to analyze impacts and assist in identifying areas of the proposed rule that we feel should be amended.

The proposed rule has not officially been published in the federal register to date. When it is officially published there will be a 90 day public comment period. The proposal provides for a delayed implementation if the rule is finalized, up to four years for existing state certification plans.

NPMA’s Public Policy Staff will provide a more detailed analysis next week after we’ve had an opportunity to meet with the agency and clarify specific questions.

Resources:
Click here for a copy of the proposal and more information about certification for pesticide applicators.

Click here for a comparison reference chart created by the EPA outlining the changes in the proposed rule.

QualityProFrom Sept. 8: Is your company QualityPro certified? Do your customers know? Use this video to tell your clients why certification makes your company one of the best in the pest management industry. QualityPro certified companies can use the video at https://youtu.be/gJZV3qQQq8M to market themselves as QualityPro. For more ways to market your certification, visit www.QualityProTools.org/marketing.

NPMAFrom May 12: The new QualityPro Certification Handbook includes updated standards that define professionalism in pest management. Resources available to applied and certified companies have also been updated to ensure compliance with recent hiring regulations. For the first time, companies that have been in business for less than two years can gain access to these valuable resources.READ MORE

NPMAFrom Jan. 6: One of the fundamental payroll questions employers face is whether an employee is “exempt” or “nonexempt.” Nonexempt employees must (1) keep a daily time record, (2) receive at least the minimum wage for each hour worked, and (3) receive overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Exempt employees don’t have to do those things. We pay exempt employees a salary and they work whatever hours are necessary to get the job done.

It would be wonderful if we could classify all employees as exempt, as this would eliminate many payroll issues and make compensation planning and budgeting much simpler. However, the Department of Labor will not allow us to classify employees in this way. To the contrary, the position of the Department of Labor is that all employees are nonexempt, unless management can prove they are exempt. To be classified as exempt an employee must meet the exemption tests that are enforced by the Department of Labor. There are five exemption categories with specific tests under each category. Click here to read a summary of each.

This material was produced for NPMA members by Seay Management Consultants. Effective Jan. 1, 2015, any NPMA member is entitled to contact Seay Management Consultants to speak with one of their HR consultants free of charge regarding any employment issue that arises in your business. Click here for more details.

Inc.From Oct. 13: Letting a bad employee go is never easy, but it's a crucial step in growing your business. Studies show that having just one "bad apple" on your team can reduce the productivity of a high-performing group by 30 to 40 percent. In addition, allowing problem behavior to continue causes stress, reduces creativity, and impacts your credibility as a leader.READ MORE

Inc.From Feb. 7: Way, way back in the olden days, people wrote on typewriters, watched just five TV channels, and put sugar in their coffee. There was no such thing as gluten-free, eco-friendly, satellite radio, or Made in China. But, thank goodness, there was the Yellow Pages--the giant directory that was delivered to anyone with a telephone (a telephone is a stationary device with a dial that one used to make phone calls) in which businesses placed their addresses and phone numbers and ads, and where their customers found them. Without the Yellow Pages, many small businesses would not have survived.READ MORE

NPMAFrom Aug. 18: NPMA has updated state specific bed bug laws and rules into one document. Click here to review the information. In a nutshell, twenty-three states have passed or enacted bed bug-specific legislation or rulemaking, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The compilation will also be posted on the EPA website, at their request for an updated version.

This compilation of bed bug laws in the 50 states includes only those states that specifically incorporate “bed bug” in their statutory or regulatory scheme. Liability imposed on landlords and tenants concerning bed bugs continues to vary from state to state regardless of whether “bed bug” laws have been implemented, due to the implied warranty of habitability. Innkeepers may also have a heightened duty depending upon state law. Therefore, this list is a reference point - but neither an exhaustive nor definitive list of how each state may handle a bed bug incident.